CA has mandatory vaccination/CA Bans Personal Belief Exemp

[VelociRapture]

I'll admit to that. I grew up pretty sheltered, naive, even? I understand that life is not ideal for a lot of people. I want to help people and care for them. I don't care what race, religion, sexual preference, or socioeconomic status they are. I'm not here saying we should deny gay people marriages. I think that forcing religious beliefs on people who don't share them is much like sharia law or what ISIS is trying to do. There's no place for that here in the U.S. Whether I agree with it or not I don't think it's ok to force my beliefs on others. I think that that should go both ways, like with the whole cake issue. I don't believe gays have a right to force their beliefs on a private business by suing them over not making a dang cake. Seriously. Find another baker. A private business has the right to choose where their products go that have their name on them. Should a black baker have to bake a "white pride" cake? You'd probably all say "no!" And I agree.

The difference to me is that refusing to bake a cake because of a couple's sexual orientation can be viewed as a form of discrimination. A black baker refusing to bake a white pride cake wouldn't be considered discrimination because the white supremacist isn't part of a protected class - there are many places where LGBTQ people are protected by law. Private businesses are still subject to local, state, and federal laws regardless of the beliefs of their owners.

In my opinion, refusing to bake a gay couple a wedding cake is more akin to refusing to bake an interracial couple a wedding cake because you don't agree with interracial marriages.

[OkToBeTakei]

I don't believe homosexuals should be treated any differently than heterosexuals. Does that mean I have to agree with that lifestyle? I don't think it does.

No. What you said was that gay marriage did not line up with your beliefs but that they should be allowed to have the rights of heterosexual couples, then only cited Power of Attorney as being that right.

Look I think you generally do think you are a pretty liberal person and maybe you are. Your posts are extremely contradictory. Using phrases like 'that lifestyle' sounds really judgemental.

When you say things like 'My beliefs' then proceed to use that as a reason for not having to 'agree' with other's lifestyle choices you are using your religion to judge others by.

[Snarkylark]

I won't abandon my faith or my convictions. I also won't judge people for their choices. My beliefs are MY beliefs. I know not everyone shares them or ever will. I don't try to make other people feel the way I do. I have a lot to learn. But I do believe in God and I believe those of us who do should be showing His love, not hate and divisiveness. I realize there are people here who don't believe in God. I'm not here to try to make anyone believe what I do. Of course I wish everyone did tho :p haha

[FundieFarmer]

No. What you said was that gay marriage did not line up with your beliefs but that they should be allowed to have the rights of heterosexual couples, then only cited Power of Attorney as being that right.

Look I think you generally do think you are a pretty liberal person and maybe you are. Your posts are extremely contradictory. Using phrases like 'that lifestyle' sounds really judgemental.

When you say things like 'My beliefs' then proceed to use that as a reason for not having to 'agree' with other's lifestyle choices you are using your religion to judge others by.

That definitely would correlate to saying we're more similar than I think! I'm totally open to being convinced otherwise, but so far I'm not seeing it other than the conservative upbringing :)

[Snarkylark]

The difference to me is that refusing to bake a cake because of a couple's sexual orientation can be viewed as a form of discrimination. A black baker refusing to bake a white pride cake wouldn't be considered discrimination because the white supremacist isn't part of a protected class - there are many places where LGBTQ people are protected by law. Private businesses are still subject to local, state, and federal laws regardless of the beliefs of their owners.

In my opinion, refusing to bake a gay couple a wedding cake is more akin to refusing to bake an interracial couple a wedding cake because you don't agree with interracial marriages.

That's fine if you think that's a better example. So do you think a bakery should be forced to bake a cake for an interracial couple if they feel it goes against their beliefs? While it's stupid and outdated it's still their belief. I think there's a problem that occurs when someone is forced to do something that they feel is against their religion. What happens to the bakers' right to freedom of religion and now in the OR case, freedom of speech?

[OkToBeTakei]

That's fine if you think that's a better example. So do you think a bakery should be forced to bake a cake for an interracial couple if they feel it goes against their beliefs? While it's stupid and outdated it's still their belief. I think there's a problem that occurs when someone is forced to do something that they feel is against their religion. What happens to the bakers' right to freedom of religion and now in the OR case, freedom of speech?

Somebody please tell me I just did not read the bolded?

Hug me...quick :(

[Snarkylark]

No. What you said was that gay marriage did not line up with your beliefs but that they should be allowed to have the rights of heterosexual couples, then only cited Power of Attorney as being that right.

Look I think you generally do think you are a pretty liberal person and maybe you are. Your posts are extremely contradictory. Using phrases like 'that lifestyle' sounds really judgemental.

When you say things like 'My beliefs' then proceed to use that as a reason for not having to 'agree' with other's lifestyle choices you are using your religion to judge others by.

Because POA was the first thing that came to mind. I said "lifestyle" because the word "choice" didn't seem to fit well. Like polygamy is a choice and a lifestyle. I don't see that word as being judgmental in itself, IMO. I haven't judged anyone. I'm confused as to how disagreeing with something equals judging.

[EmmieJ]

There's no reason a business should be forced to serve someone if they don't want to. Again, I think it's stupid not to serve someone but to fine them and say they can't talk about it is ridiculous AND a violation of their right to free speech. Is there only one bakery in OR???

I know you were specifically referring to the owners of a bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. But there is a legitimate reason why businesses have been forced to serve people, even if they didn't want to. Businesses in the south used to refuse to serve "colored people" until that was outlawed. Or blacks could only come around to the back door.

If someone wants to open a business, they need to accept that they have to offer their services not just to customers of their choosing, but equally to any customer, as long as that customer is not creating a disturbance to the business, pays for that service, and isn't asking that the business owner use crude or offensive language and/or images in the product they provide (unless that's actually okay with that business owner. Example: Bakery willing to make a penis cake; or one with breasts, etc.)

[Snarkylark]

Somebody please tell me I just did not read the bolded?

Hug me...quick :(

I think you know the point I'm trying to get across. Ok how about if a Muslim refused to bake a baptism or first communion cake? Should they be shut down because it goes against their beliefs? Or should the customer maybe just find another baker?

[OkToBeTakei]

Look it's fine. You think a gay couple who are looking for a wedding cake and are refused by bigots should just suck it up and go find a bakery without bigots. No need to post another three trillion posts.

[FundieFarmer]

Majorly edited because I am a disaster and Tapatalk hates me.

I agree there's not much difference in denying an LGBT person a seat at a lunch counter for religious reasons, and doing the same to African Americans based on race. I don't condone it, but that's easy for me because I don't place my religion over others' rights. Some try to, and that's where we come to a head.

The argument is challenging because anti-LGBT sentiment can hide behind religion, while racist treatment doesn't (usually) have that same umbrella. You can say you deny a gay couple a wedding cake because #Jesus, but there's no possible similar justification for racism (that I know of). And since religious freedom is protected to some extent, that's where things get fuzzy. The argument is stronger in the sense that there is some support for religious freedom. People are fierce about protecting their religion and believe they are right to do so, and they can scream religious persecution or religious freedom. Racists didn't have that.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's the leg they're standing on, if they can.

[lawlifelgbt]

I don't believe homosexuals should be treated any differently than heterosexuals. Does that mean I have to agree with that lifestyle? I don't think it does.

It's not a lifestyle, you bitch! I harmed myself for years as a kid/young adult because I was so afraid of coming out and being accepted. But, I have always been this way. "Lifestyle" implies choice. If you could go back and ask 17 year old me, I would definitely have "chosen" to be straight. But, I didn't get that choice. Harvard studies show that the hormonal balance produced during pregnancy is tied to differences in brain development that make people gay. I couldn't have chosen, because I wasn't alive enough to think at the time my orientation was "set."

People like you are what delayed marriage rights in some states. People like you are why I refused, for several months, to see my in-laws, because they lived in one of the last "holdout" states. In a state like that, we would not be allowed to visit each other in the hospital in the event of, say, a serious car crash, and depending on the jurisdiction, EMTs could even leave us for dead because their "conscience" keeps them from providing services. So yeah. Thanks for the months of worry and disconnect from my family! They couldn't afford to come to us, so we missed a lot, including the birth of our nephew.

[nelliebelle1197]

It does not matter what your beliefs say. You cannot discriminate against a protected class when you open a public business. Period. That is the law. I do not care what your religion or opinions may be. Your beliefs do not trump the law. Period.

[Snarkylark]

It's not a lifestyle, you bitch! I harmed myself for years as a kid/young adult because I was so afraid of coming out and being accepted. But, I have always been this way. "Lifestyle" implies choice. If you could go back and ask 17 year old me, I would definitely have "chosen" to be straight. But, I didn't get that choice. Harvard studies show that the hormonal balance produced during pregnancy is tied to differences in brain development that make people gay. I couldn't have chosen, because I wasn't alive enough to think at the time my orientation was "set."

People like you are what delayed marriage rights in some states. People like you are why I refused, for several months, to see my in-laws, because they lived in one of the last "holdout" states. In a state like that, we would not be allowed to visit each other in the hospital in the event of, say, a serious car crash, and depending on the jurisdiction, EMTs could even leave us for dead because their "conscience" keeps them from providing services. So yeah. Thanks for the months of worry and disconnect from my family! They couldn't afford to come to us, so we missed a lot, including the birth of our nephew.

That's the kind of response I was trying to avoid by using the word lifestyle instead of the word "choice." Heterosexuality and polygamy are also lifestyles. And the examples you posted above about car crashes and emt's are exactly what I was defending when I said that I think gay people as well as everyone else, should have the right to!

[lawlifelgbt]

It does not matter what your beliefs say. You cannot discriminate against a protected class when you open a public business. Period. That is the law. I do not care what your religion or opinions may be. Your beliefs do not trump the law. Period.

But we're not even protected everywhere! It's such a maze. Mrs. lawlife and I still won't live in/move to certain states, because while we can now stay married to each other there, we can be denied work/fired because of that marriage (or just the orientation).

I don't know about others, but I have been in a liberal city so long that it is literally impossible for me to police my disclosures and pronoun use in conversation, the type you might have with coworkers- I am so used to saying "her" and "my wife" that I inevitably will screw up if I try not to. So, no, I can't, and wouldn't if I could, hide at work.

[lawlifelgbt]

ETA: Now I'm a Bodily Fluid Performance Artist! Does this post count title have to do with the lady who drinks dyed milk, then throws it up onto a canvas, or is it referring to how little kids like to...smear...things everywhere?

[VelociRapture]

That's fine if you think that's a better example. So do you think a bakery should be forced to bake a cake for an interracial couple if they feel it goes against their beliefs? While it's stupid and outdated it's still their belief. I think there's a problem that occurs when someone is forced to do something that they feel is against their religion. What happens to the bakers' right to freedom of religion and now in the OR case, freedom of speech?

It's not a matter of limiting the owner's rights or beliefs - it's making sure all customers are treated the same. Bans and laws against interracial marriage were deemed unconstitutional decades ago; the Supreme Court just ruled the same way for LGBTQ couples (finally!). If someone who owns a business doesn't like that then they have three options:

1. Suck it up, be an adult, and make the cake because it's the right thing to do and it's good for business.

2. Throw a temper tantrum when they're sued for discrimination, waste tons of time and money fighting it, and still lose in the end (please see the recent Oregon case).

3. Don't own your own business in the first place because you know you can't serve all customers fairly and you realize it would be a huge waste of time and money attempting to fight lawsuits.

And yes, I would expect a baker to bake a cake for an interracial couple. Owning a business that exists to serve the public means you have certain responsibilities - such as following local, state, and federal laws in not discriminating against protected classes of people. If they don't want to then they need to accept the consequences.

Majorly edited because I am a disaster and Tapatalk hates me.

I agree there's not much difference in denying an LGBT person a seat at a lunch counter for religious reasons, and doing the same to African Americans based on race. I don't condone it, but that's easy for me because I don't place my religion over others' rights. Some try to, and that's where we come to a head.

The argument is challenging because anti-LGBT sentiment can hide behind religion, while racist treatment doesn't (usually) have that same umbrella. You can say you deny a gay couple a wedding cake because #Jesus, but there's no possible similar justification for racism (that I know of). And since religious freedom is protected to some extent, that's where things get fuzzy. The argument is stronger in the sense that there is some support for religious freedom. People are fierce about protecting their religion and believe they are right to do so, and they can scream religious persecution or religious freedom. Racists didn't have that.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's the leg they're standing on, if they can.

Actually, racism was closely tied to certain types of Christianity in the states for a long time. It was often used as justification for a lot of horrible stuff. . . The difference is that enough time has passed for most people to understand that using that type of justification is completely out of line and that there is no excuse for racism. The same will eventually be true for LGBTQ rights, it's just going to take time.

[OkToBeTakei]

That's the kind of response I was trying to avoid by using the word lifestyle instead of the word "choice." Heterosexuality and polygamy are also lifestyles. And the examples you posted above about car crashes and emt's are exactly what I was defending when I said that I think gay people as well as everyone else, should have the right to!

But not marriage. You don't agree with gay marriage. Because of your 'beliefs.'

[Snarkylark]

Majorly edited because I am a disaster and Tapatalk hates me.

I agree there's not much difference in denying an LGBT person a seat at a lunch counter for religious reasons, and doing the same to African Americans based on race. I don't condone it, but that's easy for me because I don't place my religion over others' rights. Some try to, and that's where we come to a head.

The argument is challenging because anti-LGBT sentiment can hide behind religion, while racist treatment doesn't (usually) have that same umbrella. You can say you deny a gay couple a wedding cake because #Jesus, but there's no possible similar justification for racism (that I know of). And since religious freedom is protected to some extent, that's where things get fuzzy. The argument is stronger in the sense that there is some support for religious freedom. People are fierce about protecting their religion and believe they are right to do so, and they can scream religious persecution or religious freedom. Racists didn't have that.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's the leg they're standing on, if they can.

Correct. That's how I see it too. Having religious beliefs does not mean you can treat people like crap. At the same time, people who have religious beliefs are being threatened if they are forced to go against something that they think is morally wrong. How do we decide that one group's rights are more important than another's? ESP if we aren't talking about necessities or medical treatment. I'd imagine there are plenty of bakeries that would be happy to bake whatever cake you want. I don't see baking a cake as violating my religion but that's me.

[Snarkylark]

But not marriage. You don't agree with gay marriage. Because of your 'beliefs.'

Yes, that's what I said. But I also said that their rights should be protected whether I agree or not.

[VelociRapture]

That's the kind of response I was trying to avoid by using the word lifestyle instead of the word "choice." Heterosexuality and polygamy are also lifestyles. And the examples you posted above about car crashes and emt's are exactly what I was defending when I said that I think gay people as well as everyone else, should have the right to!

Lifestyle implies choice. Being Gay or Transgender or Straight are not choices people make - pretending to be straight when you aren't or presenting yourself as one gender when you aren't is a choice, one that countless people have felt forced to make because of discriminatory laws that told them they were "less than" for being different.

I did not choose to be straight, just like Ellen DeGeneres did not choose to be a Lesbian and Neil Patrick Harris did not choose to be Gay - all three of us were simply born liking what we like. Saying its a lifestyle completely contradicts that.

[FundieFarmer]

I wasn't really equating the religion factor to be as wide-spread with racism as it is with LGBTQ issues. My parents were almost 30 then, and their experience never mentioned religion outside the KKK. I was thinking that it wasn't as pervasively tied together as with the LGBTQ stuff, perhaps I wasn't all there on that. Whoops!

[OkToBeTakei]

Correct. That's how I see it too. Having religious beliefs does not mean you can treat people like crap. At the same time, people who have religious beliefs are being threatened if they are forced to go against something that they think is morally wrong. How do we decide that one group's rights are more important than another's? ESP if we aren't talking about necessities or medical treatment. I'd imagine there are plenty of bakeries that would be happy to bake whatever cake you want. I don't see baking a cake as violating my religion but that's me.

How exactly are people with these religious beliefs being threatened?

[VelociRapture]

I wasn't really equating the religion factor to be as wide-spread with racism as it is with LGBTQ issues. My parents were almost 30 then, and their experience never mentioned religion outside the KKK. I was thinking that it wasn't as pervasively tied together as with the LGBTQ stuff, perhaps I wasn't all there on that. Whoops!

I was thinking about the long term history in the states - not just the Cuvil Rights movement. I mean, look at how members of Native American tribes were treated by European invaders immigrants, most of them Christians.

[Snarkylark]

Lifestyle implies choice. Being Gay or Transgender or Straight are not choices people make - pretending to be straight when you aren't or presenting yourself as one gender when you aren't is a choice, one that countless people have felt forced to make because of discriminatory laws that told them they were "less than" for being different.

I did not choose to be straight, just like Ellen DeGeneres did not choose to be a Lesbian and Neil Patrick Harris did not choose to be Gay - all three of us were simply born liking what we like. Saying its a lifestyle completely contradicts that.

That's why I didn't say "choice." What word would you say fits there?